Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Head of the Department of Botany, Visakha Govt. Degree & PG College (W),
Old Jail Road, Visakhapatnam -20 Affiliation; Andhra University, Andhra Pradesh
srvani6@gmail.com
I.
INTRODUCTION
Eucalyptus tereticornis, known as Mysore gum in India
and forest gum in Australia, is one of the most extensively
planted eucalypt species in India. It is planted to meet the
ever increasing demand for pulp wood and solid wood
requirements of the Industry. ITC, Bhadrachalam Paper
Boards Ltd., Andhra Pradesh, has come out successfully,
after a number of trails, with some commercial clones of this
species with improved productivity (Lal et al. 1993, 1997).
There are only a few studies made on assessment of wood
quality of Eucalyptus tereticornis from India belonging to
different ages and localities of ordinary seed source
(Purkayastha et al. 1979, Sharma & Bhandari 1983, Bhat &
Bhat 1984, Bhat 1986, Bhat et al. 1987, Bhat 1990). Rao et
al. (2002) initiated work on the assessment of the wood
quality of Eucalyptus tereticornis clones.
In this paper
where studies made on basic density, fibre and vessel
morphology of
five commercial clones of ITC,
Bhadrachalam which are about 4-5 years of age and grown
in a clonal demonstration plot under rain fed conditions at
Sarapaka, Andhra Pradesh are presented.
II.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Materials for this study were four trees from each of the
five clones of ITC, Bhadrachalam numbered 3,4,6,7 and 10.
These clones planted at an espacement of 1m x 1m except
one clone (clone 10) where the espacement was 3m x 2m in
red soil under rainfed conditions at Sarapaka, Andhra
A. Basic density
Basic density differed significantly between the clones
at 1% level (Table.1). The highest basic density was
recorded for clone 4 (0.583 g cm-3) and the lowest for clone
3 (0.514g cm-3).
Grzeskowiak et al. (2000) also reported significant
differences in basic density in two E. grandis x
camaldulensis clones. Purkayastha et al. (1979) showed that
basic density (0.538 g cm-3 to 0.640 g cm-3) of 8 to 9 year
old Eucalyptus hybrid (probably E. tereticornis) varied
significantly among five localities. However, Bhat and Bhat
(1984) found that the mean basic density of 1-year-old trees
5|P age
8|P age
Property
F calculated
Significant at test
Within tree
0.594
**
Basic density
0.205
Ns
Within clone
13.38
**
Among clones
Within tree
6.39
**
FL
4.59
**
Within clone
3.37
*
Among clones
Within tree
18.39
**
FD
0.29
Ns
Within clone
2.21
ns
Among clones
Within tree
19.83
**
FLD
0.36
Ns
Within clone
4.18
*
Among clones
Within tree
91.77
**
FWT
0.068
Ns
Within clone
17.21
**
Among clones
Within tree
18.36
**
VD
0.977
Ns
Within clone
13.25
**
Among clones
Within tree
12.59
**
VEL
1.05
Ns
Within clone
0.285
ns
Among clones
Within tree
6.52
**
VF
0.74
Ns
Within clone
11.17
**
Among clones
Table 2. Nested Analysis of Variance showing variation among,
within clones and within trees of Basic density and anatomical parameters
Legends: Basic density; FL-fibre length; FD-fibre diameter; FLD-Fibre lumen diameter; FWT-fibre wall thickness; VF-vessel
frequency; VD-vessel diameter; VEL- vessel element length
Girth
HW%
Basic
density
FL
FD
FLD
FWT
VF
VD
Girth
1.000
HW%
Basic
density
FL
0.092
1.000
-0.252
-0.236
1.000
-0.038
-0.178
0.328
1.000
FD
-0.529*
-0.321
0.144
0.455*
1.000
FLD
-0.027
-0.393
0.146
0.521*
0.560** 1.000
FWT
-0.614** -0.085
0.060
0.148
0.768** -0.100
1.000
VF
-0.241
0.263
-0.325
-0.150
0.108
-0.096
0.200
1.000
VD
-0.244
-0.602** 0.642**
0.251
0.230
0.336
0.015
-0.377 1.000
VEL
-0.254
0.220
-0.205
-0.290
-0.536** 0.068
-0.011
0.369
VEL
-0.170 1.000
Table 3. Correlation coefficients for the interrelationships between girth, heartwood percentage,
specific gravity and selected pairs of anatomical characteristics for the bottom position
n=20
* Significant at 0.05 level
** Significant at 0.01 level
Legends: HW%- heartwood percentage; FL-fibre length; FD-fibre diameter; FLD-Fibre lumen diameter; FWT-fibre wall thickness; VF-vessel
frequency; VD-vessel diameter; VEL- vessel element length
9|P age
Basic
density
HW%
FL
FD
FLD
FWT
VF
VD
Girth
1.000
HW%
Basic
density
-0.217
1.000
-0.257
0.149
1.000
FL
-0.018
0.067
0.587** 1.000
FD
0.219
-0.015
0.013
0.161
1.000
FLD
-0.295
0.512*
-0.023
0.122
0.040
FWT
0.373
-0.389
0.024
0.023
VF
-0.360
0.237
-0.471*
-0.385
0.063
0.508*
-0.333
1.000
VD
0.027
-0.239
0.512*
0.437*
-0.301
-0.265
-0.015
-0.809** 1.000
VEL
-0.011
-0.030
0.246
0.035
-0.392
-0.205
-0.123
-0.237
VEL
1.000
0.245
1.000
Table 4. Correlation coefficients for the interrelationships between girth, heartwood percentage,
specific gravity and selected pairs of anatomical characteristics for the middle position
n=20
* Significant at 0.05 level
** Significant at 0.01 level
Girth
Girth
Basic
density
HW%
FL
FD
FLD
FWT
VF
VD
VEL
1.000
HW%
-0.171
1.000
Basic
density
-0.256
-0.001
1.000
FL
0.124
0.023
0.519*
1.000
FD
0.386
-0.383
0.015
0.081
1.000
FLD
-0.458*
0.589**
0.144
0.026
-0.295
FWT
0.529*
-0.619** -0.094
0.023
0.739** -0.861**
1.000
VF
-0.099
0.191
-0.62**
-0.451*
-0.350
0.010
-0.194
1.000
VD
0.062
-0.390
0.324
0.319
0.345
-0.267
0.372
-0.503*
1.000
VEL
0.227
0.131
0.048
0.322
0.173
0.034
0.066
-0.084
0.016
1.000
1.000
Table 5. Correlation coefficients for the interrelationships between girth, heartwood percentage,
specific gravity and selected pairs of anatomical characteristics for the top position
n=20
* Significant at 0.05 level
** Significant at 0.01 level
Girth
HW%
Basic
density
FL
FD
FLD
FWT
VF
Girth
1.000
HW%
Basic
density
FL
-0.150
1.000
-0.262
0.006
1.000
0.016
-0.27
0.495*
1.000
FD
-0.051
-0.238
0.070
0.297
1.000
FLD
-0.371
0.472*
0.057
0.265
0.228
FWT
0.255
-0.568**
0.007
0.030
0.627** -0.615**
1.000
MFA
-0.675** 0.500*
0.027
0.109
0.534*
-0.340
VF
-0.302
0.309
-0.639**
-0.399 -0.123
0.403
-0.420 1.000
VD
0.028
-0.457*
0.620**
0.371
0.076
-0.362
0.347
VEL
0.034
0.132
0.186
0.123
-0.254
0.053
-0.250 -0.031
0.067
VD
VEL
1.000
-0.716**
1.000
-0.011 1.000
Table 6. Correlation coefficients for the interrelationships between girth, heartwood percentage,
specific gravity and selected pairs of anatomical characteristics for the pooled position.
n=20
* Significant at 0.05 level
** Significant at 0.01 level
10 | P a g e
Fig.1
Fig.2
Fig.3
11 | P a g e
Fig.4
Fig.5
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
REFERENCES
Agrawal, S. P. & L. Chauhan. 1988. On the structure and
identification of Eucalyptus species. Ind. For. 114 (3): 145151.
Bhat, K. M. 1986. Can plantation grown Eucalyptus meet
wood quality requirements of the industries? Eucalyptus in
India: Past, Present and Future (Eds.J.K.Sharma et.al.),
Kerala Forest Research Institute, Peechi : 422-430.
Bhat,K.M., T.K.Dhamodaran, K.V.Thulasidas. 1987.
Wood property variation of 3-year-old trees among four
Eucalypt species grown in Kerala. J. Ind. Acad. Wood Sci.
18(2): 7-12.
Bissing, D.R. 1982. Variation in qualitative anatomical
features of the xylem of selected dicotyledonous woods in
relation to water availability. Bull. Torrey. Bot. Club. 109:
371-384.
Carlquist, S. 1988. Comparative wood anatomy. SpringerVerlag. Berlin. 436pp.
Chauhan, L., S. P. Agrawal & R. Dayal. 1983. Studies on
the effects of spacing and application of fertilizers on wood
quality in Eucalyptus tereticornis Sm. Ind. For. 109 (12):
901-908.
Cheng, W. & D. W. Bensend. 1979. Anatomical properties
of selected Populus clones grown under intensive culture.
Wood Sci. 11(3): 182-187.
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15]
[16]
12 | P a g e
[22]
[23]
[24]
[25]
[26]
[27]
13 | P a g e